OX:
Prophecy,
the Preaching of the Prophets, the true Power that builds
up the Church (in Hope); tongues do not: 13.1-14.40 x 2.6-16: Speaking God’s
up-building wisdom among the mature.

X: 10.23-12.31a (plus 12.31b-13.7) x (13.8-13 plus)
14.1-40.

(Note
that this puts Eucharist-section in parallel to Ministry of Word section,
Chap. 14, which would appear to indicate that they are probably both parts
of a single worship assembly, not two types of service.)

‘unless [someone] interprets’: τις, someone’, not in
text , but is understood.

See
this re 14.13.

6

‘knowledge
or prophecy or teaching’: triad,

corresponding
basically to functions of apostles, prophets & teacher, respectively.(Cp. 12.8-9. which may indicate that ‘knowledge’ & ‘prophecy’
go with prophets and ‘teaching’ with teachers, these being the local
ministry of the church; on second thought, this seems more likely; but
even so, ‘knowledge’ is associated with love (cf. 8.1-3), ‘prophecy’
with hope, & ‘teaching’ with (the) faith believed.If
the apostle ‘planted’ love, then the prophet, the local preacher, is
to ‘water’ it (as Apollos has done, 3.6).If the apostle proclaimed Christ crucified, God’s Wisdom, the
prophet does too, as God’s Power.

translating ὁμῶς(an archaic form equivalent to
ὁμοίως, ‘similarly’).This is only a question of the accent to be supplied, since MSS
have none.

‘flute
and harp’ – instruments in Ps 150 (a wedding psalm)

Cf.
1 Cor 13.1: ‘gong’ & ‘cymbal’, also in Ps 150.If Ps 150 was regularly or widely used at weddings in 1st
century Judaism (which is not certain, as far as I know), then
this would increase the likelihood of the ‘bride of the Lord’ imagery
which we suggested for 1 Cor 11.2-15, following Donald Scholey’s
suggestion.

Héring (& same sense in NEB): ‘If there is no order in
the sounds’, which (says Gibbs) not only fits the Greek better, but also
better befits Paul’s general argument for ‘decency and order in all
things’.
Note: 3rd person singular verb because plural subject is
neuter.

Héring:
supply τις as in 14.5, so that he prays for someone
to interpret.

I.e.,
be aware that your words without an interpreter are valueless to others.Therefore speak only when sure of finding an interpreter – cf.
14.19.

13-17

Note
balance between πνεῦμα (spirit)
and νοῦς (mind).

πνεῦμα – Very
often in Hellenistic literature, this is that part of man

which
can be carried away into ecstasy, and can become in some degree the
instrument of inspiration.E.g.,
Philo, Quis rerum divinarum haeres, sections 249 ff., (Cohn &
Wendland, ed. minor, III 48 ff.).

your
thanksgiving?’ cp.
Deut 27; cf. Ps 106.48. A Eucharistic
prayer?If so, then a further bit of data indicating that Chaps. 11 &
14 are about a single service, not two.εὐχαριστία
certainly does not have to mean the Eucharist or a prayer in it, but it
seems to Gibbs that if Paul did not intend some such association, it would
have been more natural for him to have used
προσευχή, ‘prayer’.Gibbs’ suggestion would have been on firmer ground if the list of
14.26 included προσευχή but not εὐχαριστία; it includes neither.

18

Paul’s
thanksgiving that he ‘out-tongues’ them all probably bears two
meanings:

the
first (& lesser, Gibbs thinks) is for the gift itself, the second (and
greater, Gibbs thinks) is that this makes one less area in which any
Corinthian can try to claim to have a greater potency of ‘Spirit’ than
Paul.

19

‘speak five words’ – the usual explanation
is that ‘five’ is apparently idiomatic

for
‘a few’ (as in the English usage of ‘half a dozen’), but (1) since
the Ten Commandments were known as the ‘Ten Words’, i.e., the
Decalogue(from the Greek for
‘Ten Words’); (2) the central section of 1 Cor (6.1-10.33) appears to
be structured on the Decalogue twice over, chiastically, and (3) the Jews
(and then the Christians) took the second table (Commandments 6-10) to be
concerned with the neighbour, therefore we suggest that
‘speak five words’ refers to speaking up-building things concerning
the neighbour, and is to be understood as a likely allusion to the second
half of the Decalogue.

Since
‘believers’ want to build up one another, and these
ἄπιστοι in v. 22do not want to
do so (which would mean that they would prophesy instead of being
concerned to ‘tongue it’), therefore the tongues are a sign (of
judgement) to them in accord with Isa 28.11-12 as cited in v. 21.‘Believers’, on the other hand, are concerned to hear ‘prophecy’
in order that they may be built up (in the Body).

23

‘assembles’:
συνέρχεσθαι –
cf. refs. At 5.4 – cf. Num 11.29 again.

24

‘convicted’:
ἐλέγχειν
–only here in Paul (in Deutero-Paul: 5.11,13)

ἐλέγχειν in Gen
31.37, 42, Iyyar 1 or 2 [T1]: Laban confronted & ‘convicted’ by
Jacob for his ill-treatment of Jacob after the latter’s ‘escape’ (D.
Daube, The Exodus Pattern in the Bible, 1963, pp. 62-72, notes many
parallels to the Passover & Exodus in this story.)

‘falling
on his face’ (i.e., having been ‘convicted’ and ‘called to account’,

he
will confess his sins).

‘he will worship God and declare that God is
really among you’:

Allo
(French commentary in Ėtudes Biblique, 1934, 2nd
ed. 1956) supposes, probably rightly, that some Corinthians considered
glossalaly of itself as a sign of the divine presence, an opinion which
receives scant encouragement from Paul.

d.
Women not to speak, but to be subordinate to husbands (Craig, Interp.
Bible)

(This
is an interpolation - see 1
Corinthians and Women in Paul
and note that some MSS put these verse after v. 40, which increases
the likelihood that they are an interpolation.)

33b-35

Héring:
seems to interrupt context. Gibbs: it is cross-referenced to 11.2-16

(an
interpolation), & it is chiastic against 11.2-16 in X:
10.23-13.7 x 13.8-14.40.

34

Héring:
silence of women is only partial (cf. 11.15); i.e. women to be silent

when
discussion and questioning of prophet's message went on. Gibbs,
however, sees these two interpolations as basically the onset of a
re-asserting of male dominance by a threatened patriarchy.

34a

'the
women’, αἱ
γυναῖκες(plural),
are to be silent ‘in the churches’

34b

T'hey
are not ‘to speak’,λαλεῖν:λαλεῖν concerns
idle speech, chatter,

whereas
λέγειν (same root as λόγος) is used to refer to serious, reasoned speech
and thought.Thus (says
Héring) what is basically prohibited is gossiping and chattering.

34c

'as
the Law also says' - note prescriptive use of Law (as in 11.2-16) vs
Paul's own normal usage.

35a

'let
them ask their husbands (ἄνδρες)at home’ and learn from them

– i.e., question of marital subordination again, as in
11.2-16. Note assumption that all the women are married.

35b

λαλεῖν
again.

If
one does not like the idea of these verses being an interpolation, then
this can be viewed as showing that there is no conflict between the
'serious speech' of women prophesying and praying and the 'idle' speech of
women who ought not to upset the good order and seriousness of the church
assembly.

through
the Gospel of Christ's sacrificial death [Isaac typology] that, by Faith,
leads to Life and eventual Resurrection in the Last Adam, Christ Jesus,
raised from the dead as a life-giving Spirit: 15.1-58 x 1.18-2.5: Creative
power of God in the Word of the Cross.

(Binding
of Isaac as expiatory sacrifice par excellence, connected with
Nisan 14th (or 15th), i.e. with Passover; note
Christ as 'firstfruits in 15.20, on the 3rd day from |Passover
sacrifice, i.e. on Nisan 16th when 'firstfruits' of barley
harvest offered.)

introduces some of Paul's most important affirmations, 13.13; Rom 3.21;
6.22; 7.6; [Col 1.22, etc.]
Craig: should be 'But in fact' as in RSV/NRSV, since not temporal
significance (as ('But now'), but introduces contrast to
hypothetical situation of previous paragraph.
Gibbs argues for both meanings: 'But now, in fact,...'

20-34

c.
The eschatological drama (which has already begun)

20-28

i. The order of events (Adam/Christ, and consummating reign)

20

ἀπαρχὴ, the
firstfruits’ (cf. above on vv. 3-5)

-
connotes not simply the 'first-part' but also the 'best part'.
Héring: almost synonymous with ἀῤῥαβών,
‘earnest’ (= down payment), in 2 Cor 1.22; 5.5 [& Eph 1.14].

1)
of first converts in a church - 16.15; Rom 16.5;
2) of the Spirit (Rom 8.23) whose work is the first instalment of our
salvation (& the raising of Christ & the gift of the Spirit are
very nearly synonymous, for it is the Spirit in our lives & midst
which proves to faith that Christ has been raised & is the present
experience of that event)
3) As of Christ himself, 'the First-born from the dead' (the phrase of Col
1.18 & Rev 1.5).

'those
who
have fallen asleep’: οἱ
κεκοιμημένοι–used only of Christians

The
Tannaim were divided between (1) and (3). (Tannaim were the Rabbis
of ca. 10-220 CE.)

22

'all':
the 'all' who belong to Christ, being 'in Christ', cf. v. 23

-
because they are members of Christ's Body. The 'all'
becomes obviously only Christians in 15.51-57.

23

'order':
τάγμα, better ‘rank’ (as in army) –
cf. 1 Clem. 37.31:

‘All are not generals or captains ... but each is his own
rank.’

Why only two ranks when one would expect three (Christ, dead, living)?
Héring: Paul thinking of the three as in 1 Thess 4.16-17.
Gibbs: Perhaps Paul simply conflates the two ranks (living &
dead) in the phrase οἱ τοῦ
Χριστοῦ, ‘those of Christ’ (this would match Rom 14.8; Gibbs takes 1 Thess asDeutero-Paulijne,
and hence irrelevant to Héring’s case).

used
by Paul (a) of arrival of persons, 16.7; 2 Cor 7.6; [Phil 1.26]; (b) of
Christ: coming with messianic power at end of age (as in this verse), Matt
24.27 [1 Thess 2.19; 4.15; 5.23, etc.] in contrast to the veiling of his
glory in the days of his flesh.

If
take
τέλος as 'the rest' (i.e. non-Christians), then
must supply the verb 'shall be made alive' (thus Lietzmann & J. Weiss,
and NRSV margin). But, says Héring, in no texts, sacred or secular,
is τέλος taken in this sense.

c)

If
take τὸ
τέλος as adverb (= 'finally'), then vv.
24-27 are a single sentence (with the two 'when' clauses and a
parenthetical statement in 15.25) leading up to
καταργεῖται

, '[the] last enemy is being destroyed: Death!' (view of von Hoffman
(1864), Karl Barth, and formerly Gibbs. Héring is attracted to it,
but opts for (a)).

24-25

Cf.
Dan 7.14, 27: Kingdom of the Son of man (= saints of the Most High,

If
take πάντα
as aan attributive nominative (as is usually done; RSV/NRSV & NEB),
then must be 'God is all; in all'. Héring objects:
i) if take God = everything, then have pantheism, which is unknown
in the Bible;
ii) then ἐν
πᾶσιν

would be superfluous ('a stupid pleonasm' - Héring).

b)

Héring:
take πάντα
as Greek accustaive, then translate: 'that God may be in every respect [or
'completely'] in the universe' or 'in the whole universe
and completely'.
This is pan-entheism, i.e. an affirmation of the total and visible
presence of the Kingdom, of God; corresponds to 8.6; [cf. Col 1.18].

29-34

ii. Ad hominem rebuttal ('to the man;: an argument directed
to

one's
prejudices rather than to the intellect),

29

'Otherwise
what will those achieve who baptize themselves

because
of [defilement from] corpses/ If the dead are not raised entire, why
indeed do they baptize themselves [in a ritual cleansing] because of them
[i.e., the corpses]?'

There
are at least 30 interpretations of this verse. Gibbs opts for that
of J. Masingberd-Ford, 'Rabbinic Humour Behinf Baoptism for the Dead (I
Cor xv.29)', Studia Evangelica IV (Berlin, 1968), 400-403.
She notes (1) the ancient taboo that required one to lustrate oneself
after touching a corpse is explained in early Judaism on the basis of the
belief that the nucleus of the body to be resurrected remains in
the corpse (perhaps in the spine), and it is this dynamism which defiles
one who touches a corpse, so that their lustrating (washing/baptizing)
themselves presupposes belief in resurrection. I.e., their actions
belie their words. (2) She finds support for this in the fact that οἱ
νεκροί

, 'the dead', is used here instead of simply
νεκροί without the article, as Paul does
when he refers to ἀνάστασις
νεκρῶν

, 'resurrection of the dead [persons]', as in 115.12. what is at
stake here is resurrection of the body, which is why Paul speaks of
being raised:

of
the whole person, including the body (or perhaps, for Paul, this
'wholeness' being indicated by the word 'body' itself).

I.e.,
the conclusion of the above is that the RSV/NRSV & NEB translations
totally

miss
the point of both halves of v. 29. This interpretation of
Ford's, followed by Gibbs, appears to receive further support in v.
31 (see below). (Cf. 2 Macc 12.43-45, on praying for the dead only
because one believed in the resurrection.)

'I
die daily' - i.e, he is in peril every day from which God alone can
rescue him

(for
OT & Judaism, 'death' and 'dying' include perils, which if continues,
would lead to death in our sense - cf. 11.30 on those who 'sleep' re
the consequences of the Eucharist, which may refer either to one who are
spiritually dead or to ones who are physically dead, or both. (On
this concept of death see M. D. Goulder, Type and History in Acts
[1964], 36-39.)
Gibbs suspects a bit of sarcasm here: if they wash themselves after
touchinmg corpses, then they ought to wash themselves after Paul has been
around, for he becomes like a corpse daily! Num 19.1, Sivan 1 or 2
[N3]; Num 19.11: unclean 7 days if touch corpse.

32

ἐθηριομάχησα(1
pers. sing. aor. 1,
ind
.)

: J. Weiss & Héring

take
this as a conditional construction: 'If ... I had fought against beasts
... [what use] would it have been [to me]?' (No
beast-fighting in Paul's catalogue of hardships in 2 Cor 11.23 ff.
Pharisees saw martyrdom as giving good prospects of corporal resurrection;
see the imagery of being beset by wild beasts in Ps 22.12-13.)

in
Jewish apocalyptic, Talmud, Gospels, Hellenistic or Mandaean speculation
on Anthropos, but Hippolytus' summary of the doctrine of the
Naasenes represents slightly parallel scheme [Philosophumena or The
Refutation of all Heresies (translated Legge, London, 1921),
I.118-46].

What
one does certainly encounter in Judaism is the idea that the whole glory
of Adam will belong to thwe righteous Israelites in the End Time (cf.
Damascus Document, CD iii.12-21; & similar notion apparently behind
Dan 7.13 ff.). Jesus as the true Adam, if not a second Adam,
is certainly to be found in Mark, Matthew, Luke-Acts, John & Hebrews,
at least.

45

εἰς
ψυχὴν ζῶσαν

: Gen 2.7: 'a living being' (Gen.2.4-3.21, Nisan 2 [N1])

(Note
addition of 'Adam' as a personal name - not in LXX)

εἰς
πνεῦμα
ζῳοποιοῦν

: 'a life-making spirit'

Robin
Scroggs, The Last Adam (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), makes a good case
from Rabbinic data that in 1st cent. CE Adam is viewesd as the
first patriarch of Israel who was given Torah in foprm of a sinlge
commandment, which he failed to keep. Thus Christ as theb 2nd
Man is now our patriarch in whom we have the Law of Christ (9.21).

46

Note
the very strong stress here that the natural man (τὸ
ψυχικόν

),

not the spiritual one (τὸ
πνευματικὸν). is
prior in time - no Heavenly Anthropos myth allowed here! - only
'Salvation-History'. [Heavenly Anthropos myth: An initially perfect
heavenly man was killed and his parts scattered in bits in earthly men
(i.e., trapped in 'dirty' matter). THose 9gnostics) who know their
true origins through enlightening gnosis can 'escape' from matter and
reassemble/re-enter the Heavenly Anthropos.]

Philo
of Alexandria (a very Hellenistic Jew), thinking Platonically, take Gen 1
as concerned with creation of the perfect 'type' of the Heavenly Man, and
Gen 2 as concerned with the creation of his 'antitype', the earthly
man. Paul rejects any such approach. (See below on v.
47.)

47

Note
repeat of 'first man ... second man' stress.

ἄνθρωπος
ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός

, 'man from the earth, earthy'

Strangely,
this whole phrase, including χοϊκός,
is marked as being an OT quote in BFBS, Nestle-Aland & NEB, but
χοϊκός occurs nowhere in LXX or other known
Greek versions. The obvious reference is
Gen 2.7, Nisan 2 [N1]: τὸν
ἄνθρωπον
χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς
γῆς

Jewish
idea of being in the loins of a patriarch explains this (cf. Heb 7.9).

49b

Two
well-attested readings:

'we
shall bear', φορέσομεν

(future indicative)

'let
us bear', φορέσωμεν
(1 aorist subjunctive)

Héring
has preference for latter, but Nestle- Aland, BFBS, USBGNT (C rating),
RSV/NRSV & NEB give former (NRSV gives 2nd as alternative).
Former as continuing action makes more sense than latter as punctiliar,
but the latter may accord with v. 50. UBSGNT editors take passage as
didactic (i..e. teaching), not hortatory, therefore prefer former even
though they think its attestation is weaker. G. Zuntz, The Test
of the Epistles (1963) has shown p46 B 424 1739 combination
likely Paul's reading, but in this verse B has the future indicative.

trumpet
(& other signs of God's eschatological presence) on third day.

Gibbs:
If Christ is firstfruits of (barley) harvest (15.20), then perhaps
15.51 ff. denotes the final ingathering of the (barley) hatrvest at Pentecost,
when Exod 19-20 came to be read - cf. 16.8 (Pentecost).

54c

Isa
25.8 in form which turns up in Theodotion's Greek version (2nd
cent. CE).

Acts
11.29 f.; 12.25. - as love-offering from Gentile Christians to Jewish
Christians at Jerusalem to cement relations. Looks like it is what
Paul laid down his life for, going to Jerusalem at all costs to bear it (vs
Acts, which places the 'famine relief' early and hushes up any prolonged
Jewish-Gentile friction within the Church). (See K. F. Nickle, The
Collection - A study in Paul's Strategy (Studies ijn Biblical
Theiology 45, SCM, London, 1966.)

2

Héring:

'...
each one should collect by putting aside what he can manage [εὐοδῶται

] to put aside [=
θησαυρίζein - 'to
treasure up' - verb understood; it does not occur in the text]I.e., like a weekly savings account (or, in Britain, like a
"Christmas Savings Club" where one saves weekly amounts to spend
on Christmas presents).

3-4

Paul
not willing to act as treasurer, probably to avoid slanders

of
unscrupulous opponents of chapters 3 & 9.

3

'lettters',
ἐπιστολαί

- plural, ergo one letter per carrier.

Who
writes the letters? Paul or the Corinthians? Question of
punctuation:

Paul:

οὓς ἐὰν
δοκιμάσητε,
δι’ ἐπιστολῶν
τούτους
πέμψω

'Whomever
you approve, I shall send by letters'
(BFBS, NEB, Nestle-Aland) or

Corinthians:

οὓς ἐὰν
δοκιμάσητε δι’
ἐπιστολῶν,
τούτους
πέμψω

'Whomever
you approve by letters, I shall send'
(RSV & the earlier Nestle text) (NRSV, although leaning to
Paul, appears to leave the other option open: 'I will send any whom you
approve with letters'.)

1)
Jerusalem Chrch probably knows Paul, not Ciorinthians.
2) In what sense can Paul IsendI them if not by letters?Ergo, BFBS, NEB & Nestle-Aland probably correct.

5-9

ii. Paul's travel plans

6

Cf.
Acts 20 - 3 months stay in Greece

5-9

Appears
to contradict 4.19 (ergo Héring argues for two letters in 1 Cor).

5

'But
I shall come to you [πρὸς
ὑμᾶς

] when I come-through [διέλθω

]

Macedonia,
for I am coming-through [διέρχομαι

] Macedonia and I shall abide with you [πρὸς
ὑμᾶς] ...'

Gibbs:

1) πρὸς
ὑμᾶςδιέρχεσθαι

, 'to come through', 13x in Pentateuch in LXX: Gen 4.8; 15.17; 22.5;
41.46; Exod 12.12; 14.20; 32.27; Lev 26.5; Num 20.17, 18, 20; 31.23 (bis);
Deut 2.7. But only once with πρὸς
ὑμᾶς: Gen 22.5.2) Paul thinks of himself as Abraham begetting 'little Isaacs' (Phjlemon
9 - see Philemon) or even
as Sarah begetting Isaacs (Gal 4.19 with Gen 12.1 ff. - see Galatians).
3) He calls himself the 'Father' of the Corinthians who has begotten
them in Christ (1 Cor 4.15).
4) He appears to be calling the members of his churches to be 'little
Isaacs' by addressing them as ἀγααπητοί

. 'beloved' (cf. Gen 22.2: 'thy son, the beloved [ἀγααπητός

, LXX]' and by his repeated calling of them to enter into suffering
together (1 Cor 12.26; Rom 8.17; 2 Cor 7.3) that they may also be
glorified together as Adam raised (same passages).
5) One last argument. On the basis of Gen 12.1 ff. Jews took Abraham
yo be a proselyte and the maker of proselytes (12.5), and this theme they
associated with Pentecost, when Gen 12-17 were read, Sivan 1 [N1].
This matches the 'Pentecost' and 'great door' motifs of 1 Cor 16.8.
(Note Paul's whole stress in Gal on the 'covenant of promise', 'seed of
promise', and 'sons of Abraham' as the true heirs by faith like Abraham's
(Gen 15.6).

Thus,

Gibbs
believes that in 1 Cor 16.5 Paul is alluding to himself as Abraham in
terms of Gen 22.5, LXX: 'And Abraham said to his servants, "Sit ye
here with the ass, and I and the lad will proceed [διελευσόμεθα]
thus far, and having worshipped we will return to you [πρὸς
ὑμᾶς]"'.

6

'you
may speed me on my journey': προπέμψητε

, from προπέμπειν

,

'to accompany a little way' - e.g., as
far as the boat, & perhaps providing support for the journey.

8

'Pentecost':
πεντηκοστή

, the Jewish feast. Question: What did Pentecost

mean
to ex-pagan Corinthians in 52 CE? Gibbs' answer: probably a great
deal, as impressed on tghem by their initial Jewish-Christian
leaders. (See J. C. Kirby, Ephesians, Baptism and Pentecost
[1968], who argues that this deutero-Pauline letter (ca. 70 CE), is
solidly structured on Pentecost - see Galatians
and its Pentecost setting.
Thus no difficulty in talking to Pauline Gentile Christians
about Pentecost and its symbolic significance for Christians.

9

'a
wide door': θύρα...μεγάλη

, lit.: 'door ... great';

cf.
Hos 2.15: 'a door of hope', & cf. Hos 3.14-23. ('door' and
'gate' generally have this notion of entrance into the
Gospel/Church/Christ in the NT; cf. Mark 1.33; 2.2; John 10.9: 'I am the
Door'. This fits the Pentecost missionary setting.

10-12

b.
Travel plans of coworkers

10-11

i. Help Timothy if he comes

10

'But
if': ἐὰν δὲ

(as in NRSV, not 'When' as in RSV)

ἐὰν ,

'if'
(conditional) instead of ὅταν

, 'when' (tempopral) is surprising here;

is
Paul not sure Timothy will reach Corinth? (4.17)

10-11

Question
of why Timothy might be snubbed at Corinth?

1)

Possibly
because of shyness? (cf. 2 Tim 1.7, ca. 100 CE, which appears to preserve
a tradition about his being shy),

2)

Or
possibly because Paul has recently circumcised him at Jerusalem, and the
report of this has reached Corinth (& apparently the Galatian
church) (Acts 16.3 - Paul's accommodation of Jewish Christians at
Jerusalem may have back-fired in his Gentile churches, & this may have
led to the circumcision issue to which Galatians in part is addressed.)

11b

'with
the brothers': μετὰ
τῶν ἀδελφῶν
(identical phrase in 16.12):

Either:
'I and the brethren are waiting ...' - i.e Christians at Ephesus,
Or, as is more likely from the construction: Timothy will come
'with the brethren' (who might include Erastus, if Acts 19.22 is correct).

12

iii. Apollos not coming at present

Apollos,
who had left Ephesus for Corinth acc. to Acts 18.27-19.1, had returned.

Paul
apparently is here dispelling any idea that he may have disapproved of
Apollos' work at Corinth.

'with
the brothers': μετὰ
τῶν ἀδελφῶν
('other', RSV/NRSV, is not in the Greek)

Either:
The brethren and I urged ...'
Or, more probably: 'that he should come with the brethren', so that
'brothers' = Timothy & Erastus or the Corinthians of 16.17.

Héring:
part of the metaphorical language of eschatology used by earliest
Christians; cf. Matt 25.13; 26.41.
Gibbs: possible connection with the Messianic Passover, since Passover was
the 'night of watchings', Exod 12.42; Mark 14.34, 37, 38.

'stand
firm in your faith' (RSV/NRSV): στήκετε
ἐν τῇ πίστει

Héring
(and literally): 'remain steadfast in the faith';
Gibbs: In view of Chap. 15 & Paul's emphasis on holding to thwe
received tradition (cf. Notes above on 11.23), this sense seems more
likely, i.e. to take ἡ
πίστις

, 'the faith', = 'that which is believed'.

'be
courageous, be strong': ἀνδρίζεσθε,
κραταιοῦσθε

- cf. Ps 30.25 LXX (Ps 31.24 EV).

14

πάντα
ὑμῶν

'all that comes from you', hence 'all that you do'.:

15

'the
household of Stephanus': τὴν
οἰκίαν
Στεφανᾶ

- cf. 1.16.

ἀπαρχὴ

: 'firstfruits' in sense of 'first converts' as in RSV/NRSV &
NEB.

διακονία

: 'service' - not listed among special gifts of 1 Cor 12.

Héring
thinks we have here origins of πρεσβύτεροι

('presbyters') & διάκονοι

('deacons').

17-18

d.
The arrival of Stephanus, etc.

17

Fortunatus
- one of the same name named as bearer to Corinth of 1 Clement (1
Clem 65.1).

Achaicus
- slaves often called by name of country of origin,

thus
mighty be a slave of Stephanus coming originally from Achaia.

18

Aquila
& Prisca - cf. acts 18.2, 18, 26.

'the
church in their houise': Were there special meetings in houses in Ephesus

were
saying 'Jesus is anathema' (where is may have meant a calling
of the earthly, historical and physical Jesus accursed as opposed to the
heavenly, non-material Anthropos).
Deut 20.17, read on Pentecost, anathematizes (using ἀνάθεμα

& ἀναθεματίζειν

, i.e.noun and verb, in LXX) the Gentile nations who would lead Israel
astray to other gods by their teaching.

μαραναθα

- this is Aramaic transliterated into Greek letters.

If
we put it back into Aramaic, it may be divided two ways:
(1) either indicative: μαρα
ναθα, אֳתָאמָרָן,
'the Lord comes' or 'the Lord is come', or(2) or imperative: μαρανα
θα, תָמָרָןָ,
'our Lord, come!'

says
Héring, the invocation, Maranatha, had a set place at the end of
the eucharistic prayer, 'where it must have had the value of an
epiclesis'; i.e., it must have called upon the Lord to be present at the
eucharistic celebration.

(The following is taken
from Eduard Schweizer, The Church as the Body of Christ [London: SPCK,
1965], pp. 27-28.)

A year or two after Paul's first visit there, he discovered that they had
reinterpreted his message in a highly Hellenized way. For the Corinthians
the divine spirit was the only essential part of man. This led them to
several consequences:
(a) No resurrection was needed,
since man had become immortal and divine when he underwent baptism. Death
meant merely that his deified self was freed from the physical body which had
been his burden during earthly life (1 Cor 15.12 ff.).
(b) The miracles happening in
the congregation were the token of this deification. Particularly in the
speaking of tongues, man escaped his bodily boundaries, his spirit moved in the
heavenly heights ( 1 Cor 14).
(c) The body was an indifferent
matter, even a nuisance. There were, on the one hand, members of the
church nor daring to marry or to enter into marital intercourse (1 Cor 7).
There were, on the other hand, members to whom the body seemed so indifferent
that they considered everything lawful, even prostitution and sexual immorality,
so long as it did not touch the innermost divine self of man, his spirit (1 Cor
6.12 ff.).
(Gnosis, knowledge, was the
only thing that mattered, knowledge of this divine essence of man.
Whether a fellowman got any help out of this or not was entirely
unimportant. He interested the deified Christian only after having reached
the same level of knowledge, otherwise he was a nuisance (1 Cor 9.1 ff.).
(e) Like baptism, the Lord's
Supper played a role of first importance, since it was considered as a medicine
of immortality. The common meal, of course, was no consideration. It
was utilized simply to appease the hunger, but had no significance for the life
of the church. Why therefore wait for the latecomers (1 Cor 11.17 ff.)?

[For a convenient
summary of how Paul deals with all five of these issues, see Schweizer's
subsequent pages, pp. 28-37.]

I would add the following comments to the above: (1) The Hellenistic
Mystery Religions were a-social and individualistic in nature, so that those
coming from their background would fall into errors (a), (d) and (e) quite
readily. (A Jewish critique was that they had no concern for the
commonweal.) (2) The apparent practice of baptizing oneself after
touching a corpse (15.29) and Paul's explicit down-grading of circumcision (and
uncircumcision) (7.19) indicate that Hellenistic syncretizing tendencies were at
work, taking up even elements from Judaism into their practice (as is also the case
in Galatia and Colossae. See Paul's opponents in Galatians.